FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. "Red circle" of a shift rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of corrugated cases for a variety of customers. It employs approximately one hundred and sixty five staff at its plant at Ballymount.
In 2002, the Company and the Union entered into negotiations on re-organisation which included a number of redundancies. One of the redundant positions was that of despatch clerk who occupied the position on a two-shift basis. The worker concerned did not wish to opt for redundancy but chose to be re-deployed into the design department which is a day job.
The Union's claim is that the worker concerned should retain his shift premium on a "red-circle" basis. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the worker concerned accepted the position and should accept the pay and conditions. In order to finalise the overall deal the Company offered to pay the claimant a once-off lump sum of €20,000 in compensation. The offer was rejected by the Union. The Company agreed to allow the worker concerned keep the shift premium while the matter was referred through the procedures.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of June, 2003, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of September, 2003 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned volunteered to transfer to the design department rather than opt for redundancy. He was fully aware that the job in the design department was a day job and did not attract a shift premium.
2. The worker concerned works with three other employees in the design department who are not in receipt of a shift premium.
3. The claim is cost increasing and cannot be conceded.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned has spent over twenty years on a shift premium rate and cannot now sustain a loss in his weekly salary.
2. As a result of the overall productivity deal the Company made substantial savings.
3. The worker concerned should retain his shift premium on a "red circle" basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the claimant should be given the option of either of the following:
- Retain his current salary (inclusive of shift premium) for a period up to the time when his retained salary is in line with the salary of others employed in the design area - his salary would effectively be stabilised, therefore, no increase in pay would arise until such time as specified above.
Or- Accept a lump sum equal to the remainder of the offer put to him in December, 2002, when he was offered approximately three years buy out of his shift premium.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd September, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.